qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: limited request size in write zeroes uns


From: Denis V. Lunev
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: limited request size in write zeroes unsupported path
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 15:34:07 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0

On 05/01/15 14:29, Peter Lieven wrote:
If bs->bl.max_write_zeroes is large and we end up in the unsupported
path we might allocate a lot of memory for the iovector and/or even
generate an oversized requests.

Fix this by limiting the request by the minimum of the reported
maximum transfer size or 16MB (32768 sectors).

Reported-by: Denis V. Lunev <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven <address@hidden>
---
  block.c |    5 ++++-
  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
index a612594..8009478 100644
--- a/block.c
+++ b/block.c
@@ -3203,6 +3203,9 @@ static int coroutine_fn 
bdrv_co_do_write_zeroes(BlockDriverState *bs,

          if (ret == -ENOTSUP) {
              /* Fall back to bounce buffer if write zeroes is unsupported */
+            int max_xfer_len = MIN_NON_ZERO(bs->bl.max_transfer_length,
+                                            MAX_WRITE_ZEROES_DEFAULT);
+            num = MIN(num, max_xfer_len);
              iov.iov_len = num * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE;
              if (iov.iov_base == NULL) {
                  iov.iov_base = qemu_try_blockalign(bs, num * 
BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE);
@@ -3219,7 +3222,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn 
bdrv_co_do_write_zeroes(BlockDriverState *bs,
              /* Keep bounce buffer around if it is big enough for all
               * all future requests.
               */
-            if (num < max_write_zeroes) {
+            if (num < max_xfer_len) {
                  qemu_vfree(iov.iov_base);
                  iov.iov_base = NULL;
              }

Reviewed-by: Denis V. Lunev <address@hidden>

Though pls consider my patch v3, it avoids allocation of 16 Mb here and
uses only 1 Mb of memory.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]